There are few less sympathetic characters in America than a member of Congress. The caricature of the rich, or about-to-cash-out, sleazy elected official out to further enrich themselves and wine and dine among the cocktail party set in Georgetown is well established. And indeed, the average member of Congress has a net worth of more than $1 million, according to the latest data available.

So when the public directly encounters some of the harsh realities of congressional finances or less-than-wealthy members, it is often a culture shock. Perhaps never has this been truer than with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the wonder-freshman from the Bronx, a former bartender who has become an objection of fascination on the left and the right. Her relatively meager savings and the challenges she faces affording a second home in Washington thrust her into a new light as freshmen attended their Capitol Hill orientation activities over the past few days.

Story Continued Below

First, conservatives should leave Ocasio-Cortez’s finances alone, not only because it’s the right and privacy-respecting thing to do, but also because reminding voters that she is like them, and you are not, is bad politics.

And second, we should all want to encourage more middle-class people to run for office, not less. And we should make Congress more accessible to them by eliminating the housing quandary in Washington—which has become one of the priciest real estate markets in the country—and building a dorm-style apartment building near the Capitol. The side effects would benefit taxpayers immensely.

The idea of congressional dorms, or a stipend for housing, have been debated for decades. Meanwhile, we hear stories of members literally living in their offices—among them is outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan—to save money, or of other representatives living in houseboats or in group homes that resemble flophouses. In 2011, one good-government group even filed a complaint, alleging that at least 33 members were sleeping in their offices in what constituted a misuse of official resources.

One problem Congress faces solving this problem is that it is politically impossible to vote yourself a new benefit or luxury. Most congressional pay raises take effect in the next Congress to avoid this appearance of conflict. Members of Congress earn a salary of $174,000 a year, which is well above the national median income, but they haven’t had a pay raise since 2009.

Still, who really feels sorry for Congress? Many are indeed independently wealthy, and again, $174,000 is not exactly the wages of poverty. Shouldn’t that be enough?

Set aside the political optics for a second, though, and the idea of subsidized housing for members of Congress makes a ton of sense.

For one thing, housing often causes controversy in itself. Many members have been ensnarled in the trap of renting from a donor or lobbyist because it seems like a good deal, only to find themselves in ethical gray areas, at best. Eliminating this incentive to enter into a financial relationship with The Swamp is good housekeeping.

Washington is also very expensive. The high and rising price-per-square-foot can be directly attributed to the largesse of government, but that’s hardly a new member’s fault. Consider a member who is providing for a family in Orange County, California, but also needs housing in Washington. The bills are brutal, despite the seemingly hefty salary, and creates an unfair advantage for members whose districts are within driving distance.

Renting or buying permanent housing in Washington also creates an incentive structure to spend more time in the capital and not back with voters in the district. Or to stay in Congress longer. The Swamp becomes a home and not simply the place of legislative business. And then it remains a home after they leave office, since this foothold makes transitioning to a new job on K street physically and mentally easier.

As noted, many members already sleep in their offices. This is essentially dorm living without the dorm, and some argue it’s unseemly. Think about it: Do you want to meet with your representative next to the cot they slept on last night?

But my favorite reason for building Congress a dorm is simply fellowship. The comity in Washington is directly proportional to the amount of time elected officials spend with one another, and more specifically, with members of the opposite party. Nowadays, Democrats and Republicans are spending less and less time together, and it’s one reason our politics have become so poisonous. If you want Washington to be less dysfunctional, then force members of Congress to get to know each other better.

For an added twist, how about making the room assignments explicitly with bipartisanship in mind? You’re much less likely to attack a fellow member on a cable news panel if you’re going to be splitting kitchen duties with them later that evening. And you may even come to find that while your political differences are stark, your humanity is mostly shared. Members representing coastal urban areas would benefit from living with a rural Midwestern representative and vice-versa, simply to understand the diversity of this nation better.

There’s a famous yarn about Lyndon B. Johnson from his days as a new aide to a freshman member. Johnson rented a room at the Dodge Hotel and on his first night, took four showers in the shared bathroom and the next morning brushed his teeth five times, just so he could get to know the other aides. His march to senatorial power began with retail politicking in the bathroom.

OK, how would it work? Building a dorm for 535 members of Congress—in theory, that’s 535 fully grown adults—sounds expensive.

Security would and should be the first thought. You’re creating another edifice for the U.S. Capitol Police to secure. But there is prime real estate within the already-secure Capitol complex, that could be built on, like the mostly useless park above the House office building garages.

On this spot, you could build a hotel-like building where any member could rent a room with a bathroom. Families could be offered larger suites or more temporary accommodations for short-term visits. Kitchens, eating areas and living spaces could be shared.

We’re not talking about building the Taj Mahal here. The budget could be sparse and paid for with minimal spending cuts elsewhere. The housing would be available for a very modest rent, and if you chose to live elsewhere, that would be fine, but you’d be on your own financially. Taxpayers don’t need to be subsidizing luxury high-rise condos if that’s your preference.

Members of Congress will never build themselves housing so long as voters view it as self-enrichment. Perhaps it’s better to think of this setup less as a benefit and more as a loose requirement of the job: We send you to Washington to spend your time there legislating and representing us, not becoming an advocate for your well-heeled neighbors in D.C.’s posh enclaves.